One of the longest standing quests in philosophy has been the search for truth. From Plato to Kant, every serious philosopher has taken an epistemological stand. In William James’ Pragmatism, a series of lectures, he presents a compelling pragmatic theory, one that argues our truths ought to remain truths only if they provide useful consequences. James’ conception of truth is a radical deviation from our standard ways of thinking, and has the potential to result in rather fruitful effects.

In 1951, Albert Camus published The Rebel, a book-length essay aimed at diagnosing the metaphysical significance of rebellion and revolution. Primarily centered around Western Europe, Camus adopts a riveting existentialist position on why man rebels. In this paper, I will summarize the arguments laid forth in his book, as well as provide my own thoughts. I argue that while Camus makes an interesting case for purpose in life through a well-constructed historical lens, he ultimately provides a nebulous position on what it means to be ethical. The Rebel, therefore, is best interpreted not as an ethical guide but as an existential instruction manual for how we navigate the universe.

It has long been the position of the Abrahamic faith, and especially Catholicism, that the history of man has seen numerous miracles—divine intervention in the physical world.[1] George Berkeley positions himself in agreement with the claim that God has in fact intervened in ordinary physical series of things, whereas Spinoza rejects this notion, appealing to God’s substantive relationship to Nature. Comparatively, not only does Berkeley provide a strong objection to his own position, but Spinoza’s stance on miracles remains far less susceptible to attack and provides meaningful benefits.

In Ethics, Benedict De Spinoza presents the controversial claim that everything has a mind. Also known as panpsychism, Spinoza commits himself to the position that all things are animate, albeit to differing degrees. Upon proper examination of what counts as thinking, as well as the idea of a body, panpsychism presents a compelling and believable view of the world. While objections exist, most rest on faulty, anthropocentric premises of what consciousness must be like.

In Hegel’s Reason in History, the task of philosophizing history is undergone. In this paper, I will address three main points. One, that the progress of human history is rational in structure. Two, that history showcases the spread of the Idea of freedom through the action of individuals. Three, that the Idea manifests itself in the state, granting us the highest amount of freedom possible. Finally, I will conclude with my own thoughts on these three claims put forth by Hegel.

In this paper I will look at three primary ways Deleuze analyzes the works of Francis Bacon. I will conclude this analysis with my own assessment of Bacon and Deleuze’s thoughts and present two reasons as to why Bacon provides an enthralling understanding of the nature of the painting.

As long as culture, media, and art has existed, so too has the everlasting conundrum of taste. That is to say: how can we resolve competing opinions on aesthetic standards? In the following essay, I will look at how David Hume and Immanuel Kant approach this problem. After comparing the two, I will conclude with my own thoughts.